In his opening lecture of the LL.M. Program in Public International Law at Leiden University, Judge Buergenthal examines whether the recent phenomenon of the proliferation of international tribunals is to be welcomed or regretted by those who are interested in seeing international law become a vibrant and politically relevant legal system. He addresses questions relating to their interaction and the delimitation of their respective roles.

This article questions the legality of the extent of the Iraqi sanctions regime, due to its severe impact on human rights such as the right to life and the right to health. After examining whether the Security Council is bound by human rights, the article examines if and to what extent the Security Council may limit human rights norms when imposing economic sanctions. In the process it distinguishes between non-derogable and derogable human rights. With respect to the latter, it supports limitation in accordance with a proportionality principle that protects the core of the rights involved, while at the same time allows the Security Council the flexibility required by its unique role in the maintenance of international peace and security.

Environmental damages caused by Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and its aftermath are to be assessed through the compensation system created by the UN Security Council. The UN Compensation Commission (‘UNCC’) has scheduled its first decision on environmental claims for the summer of 2001. These claims, however, deserve a particular treatment by the UNCC: problems related to the law applicable, the principle of due process, the principle of causal link, the assessment of damage, the identification of injured subjects, and the type of compensation are particularly addressed in the following pages. Keeping in mind the ‘precedent-setting procedure’ used by the UNCC, this article tries to explore previous applicable precedents, ordering them into a structured ‘legal’ framework and exposing existing gaps, if any.

The article reviews (i) the qualifications of judges of, and (ii) the distribution of seats in, the ICJ. (i) Since 1966 there has been only one judge elected who merely satisfied the requirement relating to highest national judicial office. It is clear that with the increase in the supply of competent public international ‘jurists’ from the developing countries and because of the increasingly complicated and specialized nature of international law national judicial office has become irrelevant and insufficient as a qualification. Recognized competence as a public international jurist should be the only valid criterion. On the other hand, the latter concept has been given an unwarranted and undesirable extension by the UN, especially in connection with candidates from developing countries. (ii) While, in keeping with Article 9 of the Statute, there is some agreed regional distribution of seats among the non-permanent members of the Security Council, equity seems to be disregarded, particularly among the non-Western European states, by rotation among states being ignored. This is not in keeping with the Statute.

This article considers the contribution of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) to the development of the rules and principles of international humanitarian law (‘IHL’). In recent times, the contribution of the Court to this body of the law has been overshadowed by the work of the two ad hoc international criminal tribunals, the ICTY and the ICTR, established by the Security Council to punish those responsible for serious breaches of IHL. Nevertheless, the ICJ, in both its contentious and advisory jurisdictions, has considered the provisions of IHL on a number of occasions, and in the process has clarified many areas of IHL. This article is concerned with one particular issue: how does the Court perceive the fundamental nature of IHL? The analysis adopts two themes. First, an assessment is made of the part played by the Court in the process of bringing IHL into conformity with the changing emphasis of general international law. In both the Nicaragua case and the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion the Court continued the process of what has been referred to as the “humanization of international law.” Second, the approach of the Court to the vexed issue of the relationship between ius ad bellum and IHL is considered. The conclusion is reached that the approach of the Court to this latter issue has undermined its contribution to infusing the humanitarian ethos into IHL.

As a result of the perception that trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’) are too lengthy, a discernible shift in the trial practice of the ICTY is occurring, with a greater emphasis on the role that the judges play in controlling the proceedings. While the first few trials at the Tribunal closely resembled common law criminal trials, the level of control being exercised by the Trial Chambers in recent cases is moving more in the direction of the civil law approach. As a result, a truly mixed jurisdiction, that is, one that contains elements of both the common law and the civil law, is emerging. This evolutionary process will be examined in the context of: (1) The Rules of Procedure and Evidence and amendments thereto concerning case management; (2) examples of case management under the amended Rules; and (3) the future evolution of the ICTY.

The speaker identifies the scale of the task facing the ICTY and ICTR. He speaks of the necessary procedural and personnel imperfections by which their performance is bound to be limited along with the imperfections of the people of the regions whose war crimes they deal with. He deals with some inevitable shortcomings in the lawyers and judges working at the tribunals and argues for the need to have personnel of the very highest quality doing the tribunals' work. He highlights the need to be truly objective about the tribunals and their work but expresses optimism about their potential beneficial effects.

All crimes of genocide have a common structure: There must be an actus reus, a corresponding mens rea and, in addition, a second subjective element, the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a […] group as such.” This so called “genocidal intent,” is characterized by the fact that responsibility for completed genocide does not depend on the result, the perpetrator intended to achieve. The threshold of this intent is not higher than for the mens rea described in Article 30 of the Rome Statute; in particular, no special quality of the volitive side of this intent is required. Dolus eventualis, therefore, is sufficient to commit the actus reus and to have, in addition, the particular “intent to destroy […].” An inherent, additional and independent, contexual criterion, as proposed in The Draft Elements of Crimes is neither admissible nor advisable to limit the punishability of genocide or the jurisdiction of the Court for such crimes.

Article 5 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court verifies the four most serious crimes to the international community as a whole upon which the Court shall have jurisdiction. Though it includes the crime of aggression the Statute lacks a definition of that crime. The purpose of the article is to offer a sustainable definition. It discusses the constitutive elements of the crime, focussing on the crucial points in a debate that has been actively engaged in for the past 50 years. Certainly, the crux of the matter lies in the role the Security Council should play in this regard. […] there has been a persistent undercurrent of opinion expressive of the view that there is no fixed limit to the possibilities of judicial settlement; that all conflicts in the sphere of international politics can be reduced to contests of a legal nature; that the only decisive test of justiciability of the dispute is the willingness of the disputants to submit the conflict to the arbitrament of law.H. Lauterpacht

The quest for a constructive solution to the situation in Chechnya is a challenge of the greatest importance. The prospects are examined against a review of the historical background of conflict and suffering. Solutions would have to be based on some form of autonomy within the Russian Federation, providing for extensive self-government in relation to education, culture, use of local languages, measures to protect the environment, local planning, economic development, local policing functions, and housing, health, and other social services. But there are other matters which must be shared with the central authorities. Optimal divisions of functions between autonomous Chechnya and the federal authorities will take time had has to proceed step by step. The role of international agencies in achieving and guaranteeing this result is examined.

The development of the former USSR oil and gas resources presents considerable political and legal challenges, such as intergovernmental agreements, delimitation of borders, and jurisdiction over the energy resources (e.g., Caspian basin). In this respect the pipeline transportation and transit have become increasingly important issues. In view of Article 7 of the Energy Charter Treaty, the novel public international law obligation of states to facilitate and not to impede the transport of energy through pipelines, this article will briefly consider the possible international forums for the resolution of legal conflicts over pipeline transit in the former Soviet Union.

In Surinam, in December 1982, fifteen political opponents of the military regime were allegedly tortured and killed. Fourteen were of Surinam nationality and one was Dutch. There was never an official inquiry by either the Surinam or the Dutch authorities, but several international bodies investigated and reported on the case. The main responsibility of the crime can be attributed to Mr D.D. Bouterse, who has been able to move freely since 1982 and still appears to be occupying an influential position in Surinam. Recently, however, both the Surinam Court of Justice and the Dutch Amsterdam Court of Appeal have decided that Bouterse can be prosecuted. In Surinam, he is to be prosecuted for murder on the basis of national criminal law. The Amsterdam Court ordered that prosecution take place for the international crime of torture on the basis of universal jurisdiction.